I know you have practiced Soto Zen, did you find and similarity between the meditation method/experience?

Metta

not for a long time.. my meditation seemed to never follow me off the cushion back in my zen days, it was more of a "recharging" type experience than a life changing one. though there could be many reasons as to why (i was a beginer for one), but i've heard the same from many zen students who come to theravada.

สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat

clw_uk wrote:Dont know if this has already been brought up, is Zazen and vipassana the same?

I have no Zen training, so do not take my word as a statement of absolute truth.

But from what I have heard and read, I have the impression that Zazen is less structured than most Vipassana (or, more correctly: Satipatthana) methods. Satipatthana teachers usually say: Observe this, observe that. Zen teachers usually say: Sit!

If my observations at E-Sangha and Zen Forum International are anything to go by, there's vastly different opinions on this matter.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

If my understanding is correct, the etymology of Zen derives from the Pāli word jhāna. So, I guess Zen means Samatha rather than Vipassanā.

IMO the instruction to “just sit” is dumb. It disregards all of the detailed instructions given in the Satipatthāna Sutta. Using the right method and acquiring skill in using it requires more specific instruction than “just sit” or “just watch your mind.”

Don't rely only on books or what you read on forums, but take the trouble to spend a significant amount of time with a teacher who can explain the practical method in detail.

You can learn a lot from good books like In This Very Life, but it is still more efficient to get personal instruction.

i think the zen i was taught is closest to this teaching of the buddha from the Bahiya Sutta

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

but like i said before zazen other than in the shikantaza style is just anapanasati, not vipassana.

สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat

jcsuperstar wrote:i think the zen i was taught is closest to this teaching of the buddha from the Bahiya Sutta

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

but like i said before zazen other than in the shikantaza style is just anapanasati, not vipassana.

This is a very interesting Sutta quote, thank you.

It is also how I understand shikantaza (choiceless awareness, silent illumination), although I never had instruction from a Soto teacher.

As for other Zen meditation, I agree with the earlier poster who said that although it resembles anapanasatti it is less structured and maybe somewhat different in spirit.

For example you may get an instruction to observe your breath, and return to it when you get distracted. But getting distracted is also a part of the process as is returning. So while you are making an effort to stay with it, the actual mechanics is far less important than discovering what your mind is like and developing this alert non-judgmental attention.

And then when the concentration is stabilised, one asks: who is paying attention? This is really the crux of zazen - not the concentration on this or that, but the turning around of this focused awareness back on itself. "Show me your mind, so I can pacify it!" Bodhidharma (the legendary founder of Zen) bellowed at Huiko.

This is considered the root of practice - insight into who I really am (or am not). And while there are moments of other sort of insight along the way, they are kind of incidental and not the focus of the practice itself, as I understand it.

Mind you I am not a teacher, and Zen is a diverse tradition so not everyone will agree.

The heart of the path is SO simple. No need for long explanations. Give up clinging to love and hate, just rest with things as they are. That is all I do in my own practice. Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it be. When you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing. Of course, there are dozens of meditation techniques to develop samadhi and many kinds of vipassana. But it all comes back to this - just let it all be. Step over here where it is cool, out of the battle. - Ajahn Chah

Well, that's a limited subset of vipassana... if it were all, the Satipatthana Sutta needn't be so long!

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

Well, that's a limited subset of vipassana... if it were all, the Satipatthana Sutta needn't be so long!

Metta,Retro.

Just a generalization to show the similarities in my opinion of the two and is not meant to be an exhaustive explanation. Ill leave that to the scholars and commentaries.

The heart of the path is SO simple. No need for long explanations. Give up clinging to love and hate, just rest with things as they are. That is all I do in my own practice. Do not try to become anything. Do not make yourself into anything. Do not be a meditator. Do not become enlightened. When you sit, let it be. When you walk, let it be. Grasp at nothing. Resist nothing. Of course, there are dozens of meditation techniques to develop samadhi and many kinds of vipassana. But it all comes back to this - just let it all be. Step over here where it is cool, out of the battle. - Ajahn Chah

I'm trying to figure all this out, now, which may turn out to be an impossibility.

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009